Index Archive

13 August 2016

Judiciary Versus Government of India is it a clash of Ego?
Who suffers - Common Indian citizens
April 25, 2016 –

In a rare display of emotion, Chief Justice of India TS Thakur broke down to tears during his speech at Joint Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts in Delhi.

He said following “inaction” in raising the number of judges from 21,000 to 40,000 to handle mounting cases, saying, “You cannot shift the entire burden on the judiciary.”
“Nothing moves,” an unusually emotional CJI Thakur said, recalling a 1987 Law Commission recommendation to increase the number of judges from the then 10 judges per 10 lakh people to 50. “Then comes inaction by the government as the increase (in the strength of judges) does not take place,” he said in a choked voice while addressing the inaugural session of the Joint Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts. “.

After that Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised to look into the long-pending demand of the judiciary regarding an increase in the number of judges to reduce the burden of increasing cases.

A Parliamentary Department Related Standing Committee on Law then headed by Mr. Pranab Mukherjee had also recommended taking the judge-to-people ratio to 50 from 10.

The CJI also spoke of the “tug of war” that goes on between the Centre and the states over funding, infrastructure and other issues. As of today, the judge-to-people ratio stands at 15 judges to 10 lakh people, which is way lower than in the US, Australia, UK and Canada.

Referring to the pressures Indian judges face, CJI Thakur said that from a munsif to a Supreme Court judge, the average disposal in India is 2,600 cases per annum as compared to 81 cases per annum in the US.

Saturday, August 13, 2016

After that what happened Nothing Happened.

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Narendra Modi government whether it is trying to bring the entire judicial institution to a "grinding halt" by sitting on recommendations of the Collegium for appointment and transfer of judges to High Courts across the country.

"We have a chart here detailing the list of Collegium recommendations for appointments and transfers. We can give it to you. There are 75 names of HC judges recommended by the Collegium. These include names for appointments and transfers of HC judges, including Chief Justices. There is nothing on them from your side so far,"

The government may be working on the draft Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges, but that did not give them the excuse to freeze appointments in the meanwhile. "If you have a problem with a name suggested by us, send the file back to us. We will look into it... This is some kind of a logjam and this whole situation is getting very difficult,"

The Bench, also comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, pointed out to the government that "most HCs are working with only 40 per cent of their sanctioned strength and people are languishing in jails for 13 years for a hearing".
I hope Government of India will clear the files as fast as possible.

Few Important Facts about Judiciary and Judges
In 1987, 7,675 judges served in the Indian judiciary, which worked out to 10 judges for every million people. The Law Commission then had recommended an increase in the number of judges to 40,000 to provide 50 judges for a million people. At the time, the corresponding figures in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia were 107, 51, 75 and 42 respectively.

In 2010, Andhra Pradesh High Court's Justice V.V. Rao said that it will take 320 years to clear the backlog.

Bloomberg Businessweek estimates if that all the judges attacked their backlog without breaks for eating and sleeping, and closed 100 cases every hour, it would take more than 35 years to catch up.

In 2009, former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court A.P. Shah, who retired in 2010, said that it would take the court approximately 466 years to clear the pending 2,300 criminal appeals cases alone.

Latest statistics released by the Supreme Court say that by May 31, courts across the country recorded a pendency of 2.18 crore cases, of which 27% or 59.3 lakh cases have been pending for more than five years entailing litigants to visit the courts several times. Of the 59.3 lakh cases pending for more than five years, as many as 22.3 lakh cases have been on board of courts for more than 10 yearsThe National Judicial Data Grid statistics revealed that at the end of April 30, there were 27.4 lakh undated cases pending in various courts and it increased to 28.8 lakh cases by May 31.

The states which reported the largest number of more than 10-year-old cases are: 1-Uttar Pradesh -6.6 lakh2-Gujarat -5.2 lakh3-Maharashtra -2.51 lakh4-Bihar -2.3 lakh5-Odisha - 1.83 lakh 6-West Bengal 1.51 lakh

Below is the list of States with large pendency of cases filed by senior citizens are: 1-Maharashtra -2.07 lakhs2-Karnataka -1.07 lakh3-Tamil Nadu 64,0184-UP -63,7625-Gujarat 49,837

In 2016, India's judge-population ratio of 17 judges per million is among the lowest in the world. On an average, developing nations have 35-40 judges for a million citizens, while developed countries have 50.

Why this is happening? Why Government is not clearing appointments?

the real problem is except Judiciary, Cag everyone fears the government machinery as it is fully controlled by the politicians.
One has to do whatever these politicians order
Politicians control the appointments of IAS, IPS and CBI officers and many more except Judiciary.

Currently the method using which judges are appointed is known as Collegium System in which politicians have no say but Politicians want to take full control of Judiciary by scrapping Collegium system.
And all political parties want to control the judiciary and their appointments so they can appoint their friends as High Court Judges and Supreme Court Judges who will bow or stand up when any politician will walk in their chambers or Court Room.

I hope Supreme Court of India will never allow the Politicians to take control of judiciary using any type of law which will directly or indirectly give the control of judiciary in the hands of politicians.